@onyx_hokie: "..to the whining bags of pus who have thusfar dominated the discussion 
on impact(s) of steroids on sports:
<url>
Bryan S. Slick, danielfisher@example.org
If you die with a broken leg, do they take the cast off?"
    @CEBeauchamp: "<quote>
There was nothing sane and little rational in that article.  It reads like 
one of your USENET rants.
v/r Dread Pirate Rackham
"You know one things that's wrong with this country? Everybody gets a
chance to have their fair say." - President Clinton 28 May 1993
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending
that you can love your country but despise your government." -
President Clinton 5 May 1995 "
    @onyx_hokie: "At about Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:55:32 GMT, rider was dragged into the 
street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
:The debate on the ethics of using PEDs will pale in comparison to the uproar 
:over the use of genetic therapies in the future.
Yep.
There are many substances today which artifically enhance the 
performance of athletes far beyond that reachable by athletes of yore.  
Most of them are legal.  At least one is ubiquitous.
(Gatorade)
Bryan S. Slick, danielfisher@example.org
"To those who have fought for it,
 freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.""
    @onyx_hokie: "At about 11 Mar 2006 18:33:18 -0800, Chris Cathcart was dragged into the 
street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
:If steroids didn't have the nasty side effects they are said to have,
:and were safe to use, then you have no reason for why steroids ought to
:be prohibited.
Canseco contends that steroids, used under a doctor's care, are entirely 
safe.  Surely he's the subject matter expert, playerwise, yes?  You 
don't get the option of believing all of his book but that part.
Bryan S. Slick, danielfisher@example.org
"To those who have fought for it,
 freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.""
    @onyx_hokie: "At about 11 Mar 2006 20:51:36 -0800, Chris Cathcart was dragged into the 
street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
:
:> At about 11 Mar 2006 18:33:18 -0800, Chris Cathcart was dragged into the
:> street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
:>
:> :If steroids didn't have the nasty side effects they are said to have,
:> :and were safe to use, then you have no reason for why steroids ought to
:> :be prohibited.
:>
:> Canseco contends that steroids, used under a doctor's care, are entirely
:> safe.  Surely he's the subject matter expert, playerwise, yes?  You
:> don't get the option of believing all of his book but that part.
:
:Hey, I'm just going by the hysteria and all the amateur "experts"
:running around saying this and that.  Plus we've got to protect THE
:CHILDREN.
Duly noted.  I didn't intend to lump you in with those who not only 
don't make sense but seem unwilling to try to do so, by the way.
Bryan S. Slick, danielfisher@example.org
"To those who have fought for it,
 freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.""
    @waynesimon: "<email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
First of all, any drug (pharmacologic agent) one puts in ones body has both 
positive effects and negative effects.
Any medication has a major litany of potential side effects, adverse 
reactions, may cause drug interactions, and even idiosyncratic reactions 
which can be quite negative.  If one has arthritis and can't play, and a 
medication decreases the inflammation and pain at the involved joint(s), and 
one can then play, is that a performance enhancing drug?  Many side effects, 
and even potential positive effects are dose related.  The goal in the use 
of most drugs is to get the most or the right amount of positive effects, 
while limiting as much as possible or all together, the negative effects. 
Outside of a few testimonials and case studies,  I have not seen good double 
blinded studies showing that Anabolic steroids decrease life expectency in 
any large statistical (epidemiological study) showing a major increase in 
mortality or morbidity.  It may be so. But where is the scientific proof? 
Not only are anabolic steroids prescription drugs, they are controlled 
substances and can only be utilized legally when prescribed by a physician 
in a situation where there is a legitimate physician patient relationship. 
Individuals abusing steroids, are like individuals abusing any prescription 
drug.  Steroids may increase weight and headsize  so might marijuana. etc. 
Perhaps with newer steroids hitting the labs in the 90's it has come to more 
attention and wider use.  But  anabolic steroids were around as early as 50 
years ago.  Some players in the 50's, 60,s, 70,s, and 80's may also have 
been taking steroids.  Sometimes they may have been given by physicians 
after a large muscle tear, or a hamstring injury with the hope of a more 
rapid healing of muscle.   Anyway the emotion which goes into the discussion 
of steroids is a bit overwhelming. "
    @stahl: ""Bryan S. Slick" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
So it's impossible that Canseco could be right about some things and not 
others? It's not possible that we can believe what he says about his own 
actions (injecting people with steroids) but discount his medical opinion on 
something which he has not studied formally but has a tiny amount of 
anecdotal data about?
Think again. "
    @pmclean009: ""Chris Cathcart" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Chris, how much do you think it's the fans that "demanded change", and the 
mediots who decided this was their new issue shoved it down their throats 
for god knows how long, in part because now they could "get" Bonds.  It's 
been shown in the political arena that the issues that are "important to the 
public" at a given time tend to trend real closely with what's in the paper 
a lot at that time.  Do you really think sports fans are any more free 
thinkers than the general public?
All you read from so many people is that "Bonds is a jerk."  how many people 
have actually met him?  I haven't.  He may, or may not be a jerk.  But when 
you consider how universal the opinion seems to be that he is one, it would 
suggest that it's a function of a continuous beating of a drum into people's 
heads.  I think it's the same thing with the steroids.  Like you mention, it 
was fine when mcGwire and Sosa were doing it(not coincidentally, IMHO, a 
couple of "good guys" in the media books.)
And I don't think they went to COngress, I think McCain et al. found 
something they could milk for their own agendas.  I think you greatly 
overestimate the impact the fans had on this whole process. "
    @onyx_hokie: "At about Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:04:36 -0500, Mark Stahl was dragged into 
the street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
:
:"Bryan S. Slick" <email_address> wrote in message 
:news:<email_address>
:> At about 11 Mar 2006 18:33:18 -0800, Chris Cathcart was dragged into the
:> street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
:>
:> :If steroids didn't have the nasty side effects they are said to have,
:> :and were safe to use, then you have no reason for why steroids ought to
:> :be prohibited.
:>
:> Canseco contends that steroids, used under a doctor's care, are entirely
:> safe.  Surely he's the subject matter expert, playerwise, yes?  You
:> don't get the option of believing all of his book but that part.
:
:So it's impossible that Canseco could be right about some things and not 
:others? It's not possible that we can believe what he says about his own 
:actions (injecting people with steroids) but discount his medical opinion on 
:something which he has not studied formally but has a tiny amount of 
:anecdotal data about?
:
:Think again. 
Is there anything wrong with Canseco's body?
Have any doctors been asked to study steroids' potential when used 
safely?
Bryan S. Slick, danielfisher@example.org
"To those who have fought for it,
 freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.""
    @onyx_hokie: "At about Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:48:50 GMT, Ron was dragged into the street 
and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
:
:> The player who does steroids, does steroids with the intention of
:> cheating against he fellow players.  He does steroids with the
:> intention of gaining an unfair advantage.  And the reason that the
:> advantage is unfair is because it is illegal. 
:
:By this logic, Barry was not cheating by using THG until 2003, even if 
:he was using it for a few years before then.
Using logic while dealing with Maynard is pointless.
Bryan S. Slick, danielfisher@example.org
"To those who have fought for it,
 freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.""
    @ariess: "<email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
It seems you know all the answers Noogie. Why is there any need for anything 
or anyone
else to exist in the universe?  Of course clinical trials are done on people 
with anabolic steroids.
How do you think many of them were able to become legitimate prescription 
drugs. The drug
companies had to file an NDA and go through phase 1, 2 and 3 trials before 
the drugs were
made available for prescription.  No one is arguing that Gym rats injecting 
each other is the
same as being under a legitimate physician patient relationship. You write 
as if I said that.
You do make a lot of opinionated and very ignorant statements thus revealing 
your true
disposition and intellect.  I think one cannot take your arguments 
seriously.  This side effect
of steroids that makes one hit more home runs.  Seems to be a very dangerous 
side effect. Especially
to those sitting in the stands who may get hit by one of these Barry Bonds 
Launched Missles.  Assuming
that he did take steriods and that is the reason his homers are more like 
launchings than simple run of the
mill human home runs. "
    @ariess: ""Roger Moore" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:dv0hco$rg4$<email_address>
<quote>
Roger,  when is your next James Bond Film? "
    @ariess: "<email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
The international athletic communities have what agreement with the Major 
League Baseball Players Association  noogie?
Baseball has a Monopoly that no other sport has. Baseball makes up its own 
rules. There is no crying in baseball.
Do you really believe that 88 to 98 of Barry's homers are due to steroids? 
Perhaps they wouldn't walk him so much if he
supposedly weren't taking steroids, and he would have a lower walk total and 
on base percentage and homer per at bat ratio, but
he would have just as many or more home runs because maybe they would have 
pitched to him.  I also guarantee you that Bonds
spends more time in the Gym in 6 months than Mickey Mantle or Babe Ruth 
spent in their entire careers.  So the hard work of
Bonds is given zero credit.   All you die hard Yankee fans can't stand to 
see their precious Babe being past by a Giant.  Go back
and drug test your own team. "
    @ariess: "<quote>
I know most of you posters are from California the state who elected 
governor
Anabolic steroid use as their Governor.  Now they wish to elect a head of 
state
who is a know anabolic steroid user, but wish to have a baseball player 
banned for
doing the same thing.  It seems from a view from outside of the state, that 
the baseball
player is far better than the governor in his effectiveness.
In some states if you are a convicted felon then you cannot vote.  In 
California you can
be an unconvicted felon, and be governor. "
    @no: "<quote>
I hope you're not serious when you imply that Gatorade somehow enhances 
athletic performance. If not, please explain how something that is 
essentially sugar water enhances performance."
    @ariess: ""Josh M." <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
]
Do they not advertise that it enhances athletic performance.  If so, the 
government has allowed such claims.  So there u have it. "
    @no: "<quote>
No, not really. People may get that idea, and that's what the marketing 
people love: they give people that idea without actually saying itkind 
of like the way the advertisements for other products can make people 
think that using them is "cool.""
    @steveandcarolbears: "<quote>
You're a fucking idiot.
Your posts are the electronic ejaculations of a eunuch.
The most pathetic part of the whole mess is that you appear to be proud of
the fact you're a moron. You revel in your own ignorance. Proudly
display it like it's a badge of honor or something. That, or you a willing
participant and have a very good reason for not acting like an asshole. 
Ignorance or assholism... only your hairdresser knows for sure."
    @steveandcarolbears: "<quote>
You're right about one thing. I didn't read much of a fucking word he said.
He's a dickhead and I simply love to cut his Usenuts off regularly with a
dull knife."
    @imnotreally: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
street
the
performance
of them
enhances
marketing
itkind
Right there on the bottle: "Gatorade is scientifically formulated to
replace more of what you lose in sweatFluids and electrolytes to
promote complete rehydration and carbs to refuel working muscles."  And
right next to the thunderbolt: "Thirst quencher," "Rehydrate, Replenish,
Refuel.""
    @Tanner: "<quote>
Try running a marathon where you consume nothing but Gatorade during the 
race.
Then try running a marathon where you consume nothing but water during 
the race.
You'll figure it out."
    @Tanner: "<quote>
Chocolate milk is awesome for endurance athletes such as marathoners. 
Drink it within a half hour after your long workout and your body will 
recover faster."
    @jackilope13: "On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:32:18 GMT, Roger Manyard/Mathews THE ASSHOLE TROLL
wrote:
<quote>
Don't forget to include full headers in your complaint to:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.161.120.155
X-Complaints-To: <email_address>
Tos violation, unresolved DNS."
    @no: "<quote>
Which, of course, has exactly *nothing* to do with 
performance enhancement. Preventing dehydration is not 
performance enhancement; it's necessary."
    @no: "<quote>
I don't think I stated otherwise. Preventing dehydration is 
not enhancing performance. Indeed, it is *necessary* in 
order to perform.
Who's to say? I haven't seen any studies that suggest that 
Gatorade is any more effective in preventing dehydration 
than plain old water. I could be wrong of course, but I 
would be skeptical of any such claim.
If by performance enhancement you mean "preventing 
potentially fatal dehydration," then yes."
    @imnotreally: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
is going
For one thing, one contains calories and the other doesn't.  You'll be
the judge on which one helps a tired runner more."
    @freezelandlawnospam: "On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 23:28:10 GMT, "Dave Wilson"
<email_address> gave us:
<quote>
So where do we stop?  Do we ban Lasik surgery on the same grounds?
Lance
"I believe in the Church of Baseball"  Annie Savoy
== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==
<url> The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption ="
    @onyx_hokie: "At about Thu, 06 Apr 2006 09:02:22 -0500, Lance Freezeland was dragged 
into the street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
:On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 23:28:10 GMT, "Dave Wilson"
:<email_address> gave us:
:
:>>> Not that I really care about this entire argument.....but I'd have to
:>>> disagree with you in the fact that someone who is not dehydrated is going 
:>>> to perform better than someone who is
:
:>> I don't think I stated otherwise. Preventing dehydration is not enhancing 
:>> performance. Indeed, it is *necessary* in order to perform.
:
:>I'd say a body is enhanced when it can go farther using 1 method over 
:>another....however I could be completely full of shit as well.
:
:So where do we stop?  Do we ban Lasik surgery on the same grounds?
If there's to be any consistency, yes.
Otherwise, no.. and people should stop the fucking whining about what an 
athlete chooses to put into his or her body.
Bryan S. Slick, danielfisher@example.org
"To those who have fought for it,
 freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.""
    @onyx_hokie: "At about Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:13:13 -0500, Lance Freezeland was dragged 
into the street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
:>:So where do we stop?  Do we ban Lasik surgery on the same grounds?
:>
:>If there's to be any consistency, yes.
:>
:>Otherwise, no.. and people should stop the fucking whining about what an 
:>athlete chooses to put into his or her body.
:
:The problem is that some players are willing to put anything into
:their body, regardless of the consequences.  And other players are
:faced with the choice of doing the same in order to compete or being
:beaten by such creatures.
Cry me a river.  If steroids are really so bad for their bodies, the 
problem will self-correct.  Otherwise...
Bryan S. Slick, danielfisher@example.org
"To those who have fought for it,
 freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.""
    @bubbarichau: "In rec.sport.football.college Bryan S. Slick <email_address> sanoi, hitaasti kuin h�m�h�kki:
<quote>
And in the meantime, another generation of athletes will grow
up, knowing that they can't compete WITHOUT dangerous chemical
enhancement.
Is that really a position that we want to put teenage boys
into?
I don't know a good solution, but I tend to come down on
the side of trying to prevent teenagers from destroying their
lives with such choices.
rich
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\  Rich Hammett       <url>
/    The Bill Clinton of RSFC"
    @onyx_hokie: "At about Thu, 06 Apr 2006 18:13:25 GMT, Dave Wilson was dragged into the 
street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
:Well Bryan the problem really isn't what the players choose to put in their 
:bodies....really I couldn't give a crap if Bonds or McGwire want to use 
:steroids,  what I really don't want to see is them being a role-model to 
:kids who believe you must use them to compete.  Maybe you'll have a 
:different opinion when one of your kids starts using it......when you grow 
:up I mean.
You had a very small point until the cheap shot.
As for growing up, if you consider relying on professional athletes to 
be role models for your children to be mature, I'll pass, thanks.
Bryan S. Slick, danielfisher@example.org
"To those who have fought for it,
 freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.""
    @onyx_hokie: "At about Thu, 06 Apr 2006 18:24:31 -0000, rich hammett was dragged into=20
the street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
:In rec.sport.football.college Bryan S. Slick <email_address> sanoi,=
 hitaasti kuin h=E4m=E4h=E4kki:
:> At about Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:13:13 -0500, Lance Freezeland was dragged=
=20
:> into the street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
:
:> :>:So where do we stop?  Do we ban Lasik surgery on the same grounds?
:> :>
:> :>If there's to be any consistency, yes.
:> :>
:> :>Otherwise, no.. and people should stop the fucking whining about what =
an=20
:> :>athlete chooses to put into his or her body.
:> :
:> :The problem is that some players are willing to put anything into
:> :their body, regardless of the consequences.  And other players are
:> :faced with the choice of doing the same in order to compete or being
:> :beaten by such creatures.
:
:> Cry me a river.  If steroids are really so bad for their bodies, the=20
:> problem will self-correct.  Otherwise...
:
:And in the meantime, another generation of athletes will grow
:up, knowing that they can't compete WITHOUT dangerous chemical
:enhancement.
:
:Is that really a position that we want to put teenage boys
:into?
:
:I don't know a good solution, but I tend to come down on
:the side of trying to prevent teenagers from destroying their
:lives with such choices.
:
:rich
When administered under a doctor's care, steroids are entirely safe.
..or is that the *only* bit in Canseco's book that gets tossed?
Heh.
=20
Bryan S. Slick, danielfisher@example.org
"To those who have fought for it,
 freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.""
    @bubbarichau: "In rec.sport.football.college Bryan S. Slick <email_address> sanoi, hitaasti kuin h�m�h�kki:
<quote>
Do you get your medical advice from a baseball player?
I couldn't find a single paper at PubMed that even suggests
what you say.  Is your e-mail address legit?  I can send
you a copy of a recent (2006) paper that addresses the current
scientific state of knowledge.
However, for teenagers, anabolic steroids are never safe.
rich
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\  Rich Hammett       <url>
/    The Bill Clinton of RSFC"
    @ACE1242: "On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 18:13:25 GMT, "Dave Wilson"
<quote>
I had a truly eye-opening experience this morning along these lines.
Today was Career Day at a nearby high school, and one of the teachers
invited me to speak to the kids about my career.  Afterwards I hung
around to watch a biology class.  The students were ages 14 to 16 or
so.
Maybe a third of the boys were *absolutely fixated* about the subject
of steroids, bringing it up over and over and over again.  It wasn't
100% clear to me one way or the other whether their attitude towards
steroids was favorable, but I'm willing to speculate that teenagers
today don't waste significant time and attention on things they scorn.
Like it or not, what pro athletes put into their bodies does trickle
down to the grass roots."
    @bubbarichau: "In rec.sport.football.college Steve Grant <email_address> sanoi, hitaasti kuin h�m�h�kki:
<quote>
The article I sent to Brian says that some surprisingly large
percentage (20%?) of teenage boys who use anabolic steroids don't
participate in any organized sports.
rich
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\  Rich Hammett       <url>
/    The Bill Clinton of RSFC"
    @onyx_hokie: "At about Thu, 06 Apr 2006 20:19:03 GMT, Tom MacIntyre was dragged into 
the street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
:>You had a very small point until the cheap shot.
:>
:>As for growing up, if you consider relying on professional athletes to 
:>be role models for your children to be mature, I'll pass, thanks.
:
:It isn't a matter of passive reliance...the way society deifies
:professional athletes it is practically an inevitability.
...in the case of bad parents, sure.
Bryan S. Slick, danielfisher@example.org
"To those who have fought for it,
 freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.""
    @onyx_hokie: "At about Thu, 06 Apr 2006 22:13:24 GMT, Dave Wilson was dragged into the 
street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
:
:"Bryan S. Slick" <email_address> wrote in message 
:news:<email_address>
:> At about Thu, 06 Apr 2006 18:13:25 GMT, Dave Wilson was dragged into the
:> street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
:>
:> :Well Bryan the problem really isn't what the players choose to put in 
:> their
:> :bodies....really I couldn't give a crap if Bonds or McGwire want to use
:> :steroids,  what I really don't want to see is them being a role-model to
:> :kids who believe you must use them to compete.  Maybe you'll have a
:> :different opinion when one of your kids starts using it......when you 
:> grow
:> :up I mean.
:>
:> You had a very small point until the cheap shot.
:>
:> As for growing up, if you consider relying on professional athletes to
:> be role models for your children to be mature, I'll pass, thanks.
:Well Brian I never said that I'm going to rely on athletes to a role model 
:to my son "however" kids do immitate what they see....do they not?  As far 
:as  the cheap shot I guess you reap what you sew.
Yes, Dive.. generally.. until one's dealing with an asshole who knows 
his argument is weak and therefore augments it with such a shot.. like 
you did above, for example.
If you can't teach your children that athletes are to be admired (if at 
ALL) for their on-field accomplishments only and that they're not anyone 
to emulate, then you're doing a piss-poor job, in my opinion.  No reason 
to sugarcoat it.. that's just how it is.
Bryan S. Slick, danielfisher@example.org
"To those who have fought for it,
 freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.""
    @no: "<quote>
We're talking about the prevention of dehydration. That 
has nothing at all to do with calories.
Calories are important, however, to fuel performance. 
This is good training and preparation, not performance 
enhancement. It does not produce the freakish results 
that Barry Bonds is supposedly getting (going from a 
great player to a freak of nature) from his steroids."
    @imnotreally: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
be
Go back to the top of this post and read the question again.  It wasn't
about dehygration until you tried to change it to fit your argument."
    @bubbarichau: "In rec.sport.football.college Dave Wilson <email_address> sanoi, hitaasti kuin h�m�h�kki:
<quote>
In general, I'm on the "less regulation" side with Slick.  I think
this one is a tough issue.
rich
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\  Rich Hammett       <url>
/    The Bill Clinton of RSFC"
    @onyx_hokie: "At about Fri, 07 Apr 2006 00:30:03 GMT, Tom MacIntyre was dragged into 
the street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
:>Yes, Dive.. generally.. until one's dealing with an asshole who knows 
:>his argument is weak and therefore augments it with such a shot.. like 
:>you did above, for example.
:>
:>If you can't teach your children that athletes are to be admired (if at 
:>ALL) for their on-field accomplishments only and that they're not anyone 
:>to emulate, then you're doing a piss-poor job, in my opinion.  No reason 
:>to sugarcoat it.. that's just how it is.
:
:You are completely out of touch with reality on this...kids aren't
:robots, one size fits all...I guess Down Syndrome, autism, depression,
:ADHD, etc., are all due to the parents' failings as well. Bad
:parenting can produce good kids, and vice versa...it's not like
:throwing a bunch of numbers into a formula and always getting the
:correct answer. 
I'm not the one suggesting that kids are helplessly subjected to the 
influence of professional athletes.  THAT'S the absolutist nonsense;  
the idea that parents can prevent such things is not.  Frankly, the fact 
that you'd even compare diseases with influence from others makes me 
question your intelligence or competence to speak on such matters.
Bryan S. Slick, danielfisher@example.org
"To those who have fought for it,
 freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.""
    @no: "<quote>
You proposed a hypothetical situation involving two identical 
runners and asked the following question: "If one is using 
Gatorade and the other is using water, who is going to perform 
better?" This is a nonsensical question because neither one of 
them enhances danielfisher@example.org. They're only used to prevent 
dehydration and quench thirst.
I suppose you could be asking if one (say, for example, the 
runner using Gatorade) has an advantage over the other due to the 
fact that Gatorade can better prevent dehydration and quench 
thirst better than water is going to perform better than the 
runner using water (i.e. does the better hydrated runner perform 
better than the other?). Assuming for the sake of argument that 
Gatorade *is* better at doing this, then yes, maybe the runner 
using it may have an edge over the otherbut only because by 
being better hydrated than his competitor, he is able to perform 
at *his* personal best; his performance is not "enhanced" in any 
way. Performance enhancing substances like steroids are a means 
of unnatural muscle and strength development, which supposedly 
enables an athlete to perform far better than he would otherwise. 
This is unnecessary, potentially dangerous, and cheating. 
Prevention of dehydration is necessary, natural, and fair. If one 
runner happens to choose the liquid that better hydrates the 
body, this is only because he made a better choice than the other 
runner, not because he has taken unnatural means to enhance his 
performance.
In short, equating Gatorade with steroids or other performance 
enhancing substances is silly."
    @imnotreally: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
who
You'll
wasn't
If you read a little more carefully, I did not propose that question.
That's only according to your own narrow-minded definition of "enhances
performance".  Relative to the tired athlete's performance capability at
the time, adding calories can possibly enhance his performance.  And
Gatorade has the calories in liquid form, which can be absorbed more
readily than calories in solid form.  So you're absolutely wrong that
Gatorade and water have no difference.
Um, like I said, that would be wrong, since one of them contains
calories.  You don't need calories to prevent dehydration.
Thank you.  That's all that is needed, 'cause previously your answer was
"no".
I don't think anybody was equating gatorade with steroids, and I
certainly wasn't.  And I wasn't interested in the steroids part of the
discussion either.  All I was disagreeing  with was the claim that
gatorade and water makes no difference whatsoever.  I guess that is
settled."
    @no: "<quote>
You're right. Dave Wilson asked the question, not you. Sorry.
But it won't make him perform well above and beyond what he's 
normally capable of, as in what's (possibly) happening in Bonds' 
case with his steroids. He has gone from a great player to a 
superhuman player *as he's gotten older*. *That* is performance 
enhancement.
Show me scientific evidence that indicates that Gatorade not only 
enhances performance, but is also is better at preventing 
dehydration than water.
I never said that you need calories to prevent dehydration.
Not quite. You've conveniently snipped the rest of what I said. 
"Assuming for the sake of argument that Gatorade *is* better at 
doing this, then yes, maybe the runner using it may have an edge 
over the otherbut only because by being better hydrated than 
his competitor, he is able to perform at *his* personal best; his 
performance is not "enhanced" in any way."
Looks a bit different in context, doesn't it?
You weren't, but the person I originally responded to was.
Again, show me some scientific evidence that suggests that 
Gatorade not only enhances performance but also does a better job 
at preventing dehydration than water.
I think I had you confused with the guy I was originally 
responding to, which would explain a lot. My mistake."
    @imnotreally: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
argument.
question.
"enhances
capability at
more
that
Hmm... you seem to be still stuck at the dehydration part.  See, if the
question was, "which is more effective in relieving dehydration?", then
you might have an argument.  But the question was, simply, which helps a
tired runner's performance more, so by containing calories alone would
already make Gatorade the answer.  In essence, you're trying to twist
the question into something else.  The word "dehydration" was never
mentioned in the question.
But this silly argument has gone further than I wanted, so I'll opt out
here.  You guys can carry on with your all important, beaten to death
steroids talk."
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 44, "forum_name": "alt.sports.baseball.stl-cardinals.20140711.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-alt.sports.parquet'}